Forget Sexting. Here's Another Twist in the Anthony Weiner Saga.

When I first saw Weiner earlier this year, I was struck by the unbelievable access granted to the filmmakers. The documentary, which followed disgraced former Congressman Anthony Weiner as he sought redemption in the 2013 New York mayor's race—and ultimately only found further disgrace—went deep behind the scenes of the campaign. That access extended to Weiner's house and his wife, Huma Abedin, one of Hillary Clinton's top aides who features prominently on-screen throughout.

Though if Weiner's word is anything to go on, she never agreed to feature at all. In a fascinating interview from the last day of the Democratic National Convention and only just published in The New York Times Magazine today, Weiner told Mark Leibovich that Abedin never signed off on the movie, and that the filmmakers broke their agreement by showing her:

"Um, so here's the thing," Weiner said. "I haven't told—I haven't gone here yet with anybody. So, they violated the agreement not to use her." The filmmakers had told Weiner that they would not include Abedin in the film without her permission, he said. "They didn't have a release," he told me. "She had to grant permission, which she didn't."

Most Popular

And later:

Weiner said Kriegman had assured him verbally and in emails that he would not use Abedin in the film without her consent. Both Weiner and Abedin were infuriated when they learned the film would go forward, and prominently feature behind-the-scenes footage of Abedin. (In a follow-up phone conversation, Califf said she could not discuss details relating to any discussions that took place between Kriegman and Weiner.) I asked Weiner if he had any plans to sue the filmmakers. "I mean, who knows what happens in the future," he said.

It's difficult to know what's what here. On one hand, Abedin is a lithe and formidable operative at the highest level of Democratic politics who knew she'd soon be going into a war-of-attrition presidential race with Hillary Clinton. You'd think she would want to avoid this kind of spotlight. On the other hand, she is always aware the camera is there in the film, and even addresses the camera and the videographer at times.

Did she behave as she did on camera—often speaking candidly, as she did when describing the redux scandal as "like living a nightmare"—because she thought the footage would never be used? Or are the two of them trying to rewrite the record now that his run at redemption fell to pieces and the film was so unflattering?